News Have we become detached from Iraq

20 soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the past 5 days, yet it barely made the news.

The secular violence continues in Iraq, yet it barely makes the news.

For political reasons only, the Bush administration repeatedly proclaims that Iraq is the epicenter for terrorists who could kill innocent Americans. Yet the Taliban has been retaken power in Afghanistan.

What is going on in the real Iraq? What is happening outside of the green zone in Baghdad?

Below is a link to a British documentary on the unseen Iraq, and the news media in Iraq Do not watch it if you can't stand the sight of blood. It shows what is cut from the clips that we do see. The F word is used in the first half in a given situation

Most of the last half is relatively bloodless and the slider at the bottom of the screen can be moved to the halfway point. (or any other point in the video)

Staff: Mentor

Well, for many of us, our personal contacts with soldiers keep Iraq in our daily thoughts. One of my best friends at work has had his young Marine son in Iraq twice now, and he is just now going feet dry stateside. He has a wife and baby waiting at the airport to meet him, and this will be the first time he has seen the baby. The whole family is heading out to meet him, and I'm sure it will be a very emotional homecoming. Thank you for your service, RaulO! We owe you a lot.

And my ERT Field Training Officer (FTO) Colonel Steve just shipped out for another year-long tour with his Special Forces unit, with Iraq as one of the world-wide destinations. Godspeed, Colonel. You have taught me so much.

Staff: Mentor

Well - just like the Vietnam war, I can't ignore it. Bush got us in there with the tacit approval of congress. :grumpy:

I don't believe that Taliban have regained what they lost, but they are stronger than the were months ago. I suspect that they are moving back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan, so it would be hard to defeat them. The people of Afghanistan cannot afford to let the Taliban regain control. Women there already have it bad enough.

In Iraq, watch Charlie Rose's interview with Bob Woodward. Cyrus posted a link. The Iraqi insurgency is attacking on the average, one attack per hour.

A local community has just lost its third member in Iraq. He was three months in Iraq and just shy of his 22nd b-day. What a waste!

The first article is from a real reporter, which is important in the context of the article. I could not track down the original location of the article, but the linked-to website appears to have reposted the original verbatim.

These are about a year old, but I think they still offer some valid viewpoints.

I used the term "detached" from the war in Iraq because that was the term used in the documentary. Complacent, would have been a better choice. We are on information overload and even that information is not the full story.

The point that the video made was that Americans and Brits only see a small sinppit of the real video coming out of Iraq. Most of that Video is taken by Iraqi reporters because the Americans seldom leave the green zone. The rest of the world does see the whole story.

As of September 2006 there were only 9 reporters embedded with the military to cover all of Iraq. Even the soldiers who filmed The War Tapes have complained about a lack of real press coverage.

After watching the original UK documentary in my OP I came to the conclusion that Americans only see the and hear about the politics of the war. We hear and see about how we are fighting the terrorist who were not there when we invaded.

At one point in the OP video, High ranking American officers and officials addmitted to the reporter that they had not been out of the Green zone in over 9 months. Yet these are the so called commanders on the ground who are supposed to keep Bush informed.

As for what is happening in Iraq, and what the American soldiers and Iraqi people are enduring, we are not well informed at all. The military recently signed a $30 million contract with a PR firm to clean up and sanitize the impressions we have assumed over what little we have seen.

I don't trust the premises of these documentaries. If you had read this article you would realize that no matter how graphic or realistic the coverage may seem, it is still subject to the concept of the blind men and the elephant (as described in the article). I am not saying these documentaries are useless, but one should be wary of replacing one narrative of Iraq with some new and intriguing alternate narrative. There is, in fact, no one narrative at all, but thousands. I don't think we are very well served by preferring two or three narratives over one. Both options barely scratch the surface. It is a good start, but so too then is the second pebble tossed in a stream.

I don't trust the premises of these documentaries. If you had read this article you would realize that no matter how graphic or realistic the coverage may seem, it is still subject to the concept of the blind men and the elephant (as described in the article).

I have read the link and appreciate the possibility of confusion. Pamela Hess who was the source of the original information gave an accurate account using the blind men and elephant comparison.

However her information is now over one year old and there is very little updating because few reporters are now outside the green zone. We do know that the situation in Iraq has worsened since she made her commentary. We also know that there is an abundance of questionable film footage. Yet we must base our judgement on something and since the reporters in the documentary were, for the most part, employed by Reuters News Agency I would tend to believe it to be credible.

I am not saying these documentaries are useless, but one should be wary of replacing one narrative of Iraq with some new and intriguing alternate narrative. There is, in fact, no one narrative at all, but thousands. I don't think we are very well served by preferring two or three narratives over one. Both options barely scratch the surface. It is a good start, but so too then is the second pebble tossed in a stream.

This is where the problem lies. For those who rely on the network news, Americans have only one narrative and it is very narrow in scope.

In addition the average American does not realize that many older problems were never solved. The lack of equipment is a good example. We don't hear an outcry from the now detached American public that we did several years ago about a lack of equipment.

From a recent Pamela Hess report. Notice this report was made on August 21 2006.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- The Army National Guard is short 20,000 medium-weight trucks and 17,000 Humvees, two items on a long list of equipment that together will cost $21 billion.

Not buying the equipment is not an option, according to Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, the outspoken chief of the National Guard Bureau. After five years of war and decades of intentional underfunding of the National Guard in favor of the active duty military, the bill is due.

The Army has promised to find the money over the next five years, even as it contends with its own war and reorganization cost of more than $17 billion so far. Where the money will come from, absent an enormous boost from Congress -- which already allots the Pentagon more than $400 billion a year, plus about $100 billion annually in war costs -- is still unclear.

"We are struggling to find things to cut," Blum told UPI in an interview.

The bill for the 40,000 trucks and Humvees alone is $6.5 billion. It is currently slated to get only 7,200 additional vehicles by 2008, according to Guard budget documents.

The first article is from a real reporter, which is important in the context of the article. I could not track down the original location of the article, but the linked-to website appears to have reposted the original verbatim.

These are about a year old, but I think they still offer some valid viewpoints.

Staff: Mentor

October 6, 2006

The current White House has been called the most secretive in modern history, and ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz seconds that assessment. Raddatz talked about covering the Bush presidency and the war in Iraq on Oct. 5 at the Westminster Town Hall Forum in Minneapolis, Minn.

Startling revelations about Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban is regaining strength and many in the US military concede that Iraq is slipping into civil war (well Iraq has been in civil war for months - it's just that Bush et al are in denial - since day one of the Bush administration its been denial and deceipt).

Staff: Mentor

News & Notes, October 5, 2006 · How much is the United States spending to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's a question that is often overlooked in the debate over U.S. involvement in these two countries.

Farai Chideya talks with Boston Globe reporter Bryan Bender about his reporting on the subject.

All Things Considered, October 7, 2006 · On Oct. 7, 2001, U.S. and British forces began a bombing campaign against Afghanistan's Taliban government in retaliation for its support of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Five years later, the international community appears to be at a crossroads in the effort to rebuild Afghanistan as a democratic nation.

A key leader in that effort is Lt. Gen. David Richards of the United Kingdom. He heads NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a 20,000-person force drawn from 37 countries, including the U.S., U.K. and Canada.

Speaking to NPR's Jacki Lyden, Richards said NATO has proved its military strength against a resurgent Taliban. But the general also said that the Afghan government and international community must come through with reconstruction activities that benefit the general population if they are to win the war against the Taliban and other divisive forces in the country.

"This thing is going to be won or lost depending on the consent of the people of Afghanistan," Richards said. "What they want to see now is success in reconstruction and development, and that's what we've got to set about doing over this winter."

The NATO force, and 13 Provincial Reconstruction Teams, operate across Afghanistan in support of the country's elected government, headed by President Hamid Karzai.

"What have the Taliban got to offer? Nothing more than more misery," Richards said. "[They offer] no education, no education for women in particular, no reconstruction and development."

In the last paragraph - for these reasons, the Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power.

All Things Considered, October 7, 2001 · Jacki talks with Johns Hopkins University professor of anthropology and Afghan native Ashraf Ghani about the reaction to the day's events among Afghans who do not support the Taliban.

It doesn't really put things in their proper perspective, though. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban aren't the same thing. The Taliban is very undesirable as the rulers of a country, but the primary reason for the US having a problem with them was that they were in the way of our pursuit of Al-Qaeda.

Without the mutual support between Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the Taliban is about equal in strength to the other tribal groups in Afghanistan. The most powerful group at any given time may grab power, but once in power, they're not strong enough to fight off any alliance of opposing groups.

In other words, without some external support, the Taliban would be unlikely to hold any sort of control, regardless of NATO presence.

Of course, the on going problem is that no other group is likely to hold any sort of control - it's more likely to have decades of conflict between rival warlords. I don't think Afghanistan's problems are critical to the US, but the post Taliban conditions did seem to be the best opportunity for a stable government that's likely to emerge for a long time. Even if not a major strategic concern, failure in Afghanistan would seem like a missed opportunity, even if success wasn't all that likely.

Eventually, two or three of these groups need to form some sort of permanent alliance if any government is going to be strong enough to provide long term stability.

Staff: Mentor

Al Qaida doesn't thrive in Pakistan (and Afghanistan) without support of Taliban, and neither thrives without support from within Pakistan, and private support from Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf oil nations.

Read the interviews in - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1105825&postcount=16 - things could and might get a lot worse for the US. The intelligence communities are absolutely right that Bush's policies and actions have increased the threat of terrorism against the US - and at this point it is more simple retaliation for US aggression - Bush's aggression. I had suspicions things were bad, but I didn't realize how bad until I went through the details in the Frontline interview. There are a few things that are missing from the Frontline information - some key details that tie some of the parties together even more intimately than is evident from the Frontline report.

What happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a major problem for the US. That is where the insurgents and terrorists are evolving - and where they have sanctuary and safe haven.

What would happen if Pakistan's nuclear weapons get in the hands of al Qaida?

Seldom seen in American news sources, but widely seen on a global basis is the connection to, and support of the Taliban by the Pakistani ISI. (Inter service Intelligence)

Commanders of the five-nation force - the US, Britain, Canada, Denmark and Holland - have written to their respective governments citing clinching evidence from the testimonies of Pakistani nationals caught along with the Taliban that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is operating at least two camps outside Quetta in Balochistan to foment insurgency in Afghanistan.

Commanders of the 31,000-strong NATO forces in Afghanistan want these governments to issue another ultimatum like the one in 2001 to ensure that Islamabad ends all support to the Taliban insurgents

There has been a vigorous effort made from the biginning to "detach" us from the war. Starting with the prohibition against photographing the coffins of American soldiers.

After the Afghan invasion America could have had the worlds support to rebuild Afghanistan and perhaps create an environment where a peaceful and democratic government could emerge. Pakistan would have handed over the Taliban and al-qaeda fighters, allowed coalition forces to go get them, or America would have been able to take them out as well, nukes or no nukes, Pakistan would lose that fight.

Instead Bushco made half baked deals with Musharif and Afghan warlords, and pulled American military assets out of Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

Now there is chaos in both countries and elevated extremism and hatred directed at America, due to our presence there. The Taliban is gaining power in Afghanistan and in Iraq there is about one attack per hour.

It appears to me that we made deals with our true enemies in the "war on terror" so that we could invade and occupy Iraq. It boggles my mind that anyone could still say that invading Iraq was a good idea.